A “God” is taken to be the source of the numinous, what might we have to mean when we talk meaningfully about a god?

  1. What does Otto mean by “non-rational” and how is the concept of “the holy” non-rational? What does Otto mean by “numen” and “the numinous”? What is “creature-feeling” and the sense of “majestas” in relation to “the holy”? What is the “ mysterium tremendum .” If the holy is a “ mysterium tremendum ” how is it also “ fascinans ”? In your opinion, given Otto’s discussion, what are some difficulties that arise from attempting to study “the holy”?

 

  1. A “God” is taken to be the source of the numinous, what might we have to mean when we talk meaningfully about a god? According to Morris (I.A.2), what is the problem of the method when speaking about God? What is his concept of “perfect being theology?” Unpack and discuss his definition of God on 17. What is the potential problem with making god “a being”?